You must log in or # to comment.
Getting people to start acting and organizing is a necessary first step towards revolution.
The problem is that there is organizing being conducted by the oligarchy via no kings. What they’re missing out on is the mobilizing part, that’s the part that gets things done. And after people have done their little frog dances and chanted and held signs for 2 hours, they’re ready to go back to brunch and forget about the whole thing.
I agree with that. I’ve been in one and it was not wasted energy because people were networking and exchanging information about local government crimes.
My problem is I cannot imagine these evolving. It’s a dead end.
Perhaps this is only my imagination not being big enough when I think of what I have seen and heard.
Come on guys, just one more disjointed peaceful protest in state-sanctioned Free Speech Zones and we’ll totally be back to brunch!
I think the revolution should be called, “Make MAGA Afraid”.
Make Make America Great Again Afraid.
Give me an easy slogan that says MAGA/Nazis/Fascists/Nationalists should be afraid, because liberal gun owners are pissed-off and at a breaking point.
Join up, fuck off, or show me you’re part of the problem (so I “cure” you) or else fuck off. I’m done with being nice and kind; it’s time for unreal violence. The revolution must begin!
If that’s your reaction to a joke comment - I don’t want you anywhere near me during the revolution.
I have a theory that if we capped the population of a country to around like 5 million most problems in most places would clear up. It’s enough people to manage modern society but small enough for people to be well aware of what’s going on in their area and community.
Yeah, that’s why New Zealand is doing so well.
5M is a bit of a random number. The theory is based on that smaller countries tend to manage themselves better. Like Botswana vs South Africa.
5 million people in a country the size of China, Russia or the US would have drastically different outcomes to 5 million people in a country like New Zealand
You wouldn’t keep the borders the same. There would be many many more countries, about 1,600 in total or 1,405 more than now.
Yeah, that totally wouldn’t backfire within about 5 seconds.
If you didn’t notice, humans are super tribal. And that tribalism is strongly affected by any virtual border one pulls up to differentiate US from THEM.
Tribalism has degrees that determine just how friendly one is to another.
The largest tribe we have is us being humans. If there were aliens on our planet, most humans would sooner help another human or team up with one than an alien.
The next level of tribalism is generally understood to be religious. Religion gained this position only relatively recently on the human timeline, in the past ~2000 years (I’ll let you guess why). Compared to earlier ages where every city state, every micro-region had an ever-evolving belief system influenced by its surroundings, today we have only a handful of dominant religions that spread vast amounts of people and areas, thus the re-categorisation on the tribalism scale. One will be much friendlier to someone of their religion than to someone with a differing religion.
Then we have the more geographical categorisations - national (which nation you belong to), linguistic (which language you speak), region (what region - this can be as small as a neighbourhood or as big as an entire country - you’re from), and of course race and other region specific traits. And of course there’s the cultural trait, which can again be as hyperlocal as specific to a town, or a county, or a country, or a continent…
This is already causing a lot of tensions in general. Just look at the Middle East - all of those countries, even though their religions are relatively close to each other, even though they’re culturally similar, but the arbitrarily present borders and differing politics pits groups of people against each other.
The solution to this isn’t to introduce even more arbitrary borders, especially not based on a random pulled-outta-my-arse population number. Look at e.g. London - a city of nearly ten million people. How do you split that to two groups of 5 million?
No, the solution is rather to create groupings of hyperlocal jurisdictions based on economic and cultural cohesion, with upward pressuring of larger groupings. Ensure all people are represented. Reduce the oppression of the majority (or in many cases, the plurality).
The main reason we have so much political tension (aside from the obviously ongoing populist propagandism spreading lies) is because in most political systems, a simple plurality can overpower any discussion or debate. You unite people on a single issue, tell them that all their issues are actually the same, and as long as that single issue remains, they’ll provide a seemingly homogeneous block, while the rest try to get all their views represented, fracturing the representation.
The US is a perfect example of this on a large scale. The right managed to unite on what is essentially a single issue (but do see how groups are quickly ejected as soon as they try to even just discuss differences in opinion, you toe the line or you’re a traitor), while the left would want some ideological fracturing, but end up shooting itself in the foot by doing so - ending up in a system where you’re, at the end of the day, aren’t voting for the person you truly want to represent you, but the candidate with the highest chance of winning, who can ensure that the worst candidate (in your eye) doesn’t win. It’s not progressive (as in, progressing your actual ideology, not the political direction itself) voting, but defensive.
What you’re suggesting would just further this system of tribalism that hurts us as a global society.
We will never know unless we try.
This sounds a lot like AI overlord islands proposed by MIT as one of twelve likely outcomes of out of control AI development
Yeah something awfully unnatural or beyond human control would need to happen to prevent humans from conquering each other’s land.
Extreme ideas like capping populations at a fixed number and further dividing people arbitrarily due to weird rules, people who have the same culture and language and identify as the same people but have different statuses and lifestyles due to their current governing body … This all requires really strong authoritarianism, and a crackdown on human rights to control the growth of the population and a strong military to keep borders in check.
It would fucking suck. It just means more borders, less places you’re allowed to be, stronger military police forces to enforce these things, and people getting in trouble for being pregnant or having too many kids or hopping a border to live with family they got separated from.
I have a theory that if we just had magical powers of mind control we could make the world perfect.
That’s what this shit sounds like to anyone with a brain. I don’t get why people fall for this libertarian garbage about population.
capped the population
Unless you have magical mind controlling powers you can do this through positive or negative incentives.
Negative incentives (fines for having more children) just creates a class structure of rich people having more children. And eventually fails to slow down the population.
Positive incentives are entirely ineffective. People that want to have kids are gonna have kids.
Neither of these work. And especially don’t work long term. It’s why China ended it’s “one child policy”. A policy that they mostly regret implementing and it’s side effects are still causing issues to this day.
Or, the other alternative is - being a Nazi. Deciding who gets to reproduce and with who. Forcing abortions or chemical castration on the population. That method definitely works!
So, the next time you find yourself talking about “population limits” I want you to actually think of how that would be successfully implemented. Because it is ALWAYS devolves into Nazi shit.
It’s one of those dumb guy “common sense” ideas that actual Nazis try to spread. The “too many people” part always starts with first removing the “undesirable” people in the population.
Just get this “too many people” talking point out of your brain. Unless you want Nazis - there isn’t an actual way to obtain any type of “population cap”.
And there is no reason to even mention it when all it’s doing is presenting Nazis as a “solution” to a fake problem.
It would be a fun experiment though, wouldn’t it? It seems to work out fairly well in the examples we do have. Smaller communities foster more union and awareness.
